TIMOTHY E. WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is not a final order and is not appealable as such.
[1] An order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is not a final order and is therefore not appealable.
[2] Appellate jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders is limited to those specifically identified in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought review of an order denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. He argued the order concerned venue and was there…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellants response to this Court’s order to show cause, dated November 15, 2002, the appeal of the circuit court’s order entitled “Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum” is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion to consolidate is denied as moot.
The appellant has sought review of an order denying his Petition for Writ of Ha-beas Corpus ad Testificandum. The appellant’s petition below is essentially a motion for an inmate to appear at a hearing, which should not be confused with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subji-ciendum. See Black’s Law Dictionary 715 (7th ed.1999). Therefore, the instant order does not constitute an end to the judi cial labor in this case and is not appealable as a final order. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974).
Appellate jurisdiction to review nonfinal orders is limited to those orders identified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180. Nonfinal orders that “concern venue” are one category of appealable nonfinal orders. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(8)(A). The appellant argues that his petition sought a court order allowing him to appear at a hearing on a motion for change of venue, therefore the order denying the motion concerns venue and should be appealable. However, “[t]his rule enables a party to seek review of an adverse decision on venue.... ” Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Construction, Inc., 743 So. 2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Kerr Const., Inc. v. Peters Contracting, Inc., 767 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). This rule does not extend to appeals of nonfinal orders where venue may be impacted by the order but the order itself does not concern venue. See Y.H. v. F.L.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Wetherington v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 661 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, the instant order denying appellant’s petition does not concern venue within the meaning of Rule 9.130(a)(3)(A).
DISMISSED.
KAHN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armour v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 895 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…2005, the appeal of the circuit court’s nonfinal order entitled “Order Deeming Action Non-Habeas Corpus Extraordinary Relief,” entered on October 26, 2004, is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1); White v. Moore, 840 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding nonfinal orders that impact venue but do not concern venue are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A)). WEBSTER, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Y.H. v. F.L.H. and K.W.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Ricks v. State, 767 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- John and Karen Wetherington v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 661 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)